campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Prayer in school
No child should be forced to pray, in any manner whatsoever, nor be prevented from doing so as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. A worthy sentiment perhaps, but without a clear understanding of the distinctions (if any) between “forced”, “coerced” and “peer pressure”, such a statement will be open to interpretation. :forced: required by the school or teacher. coerced and peer pressure are similar frames meaning that children will feel left out or outside of a group they want to be involved in. :How about: No child should be required to pray in a certain way, or in any manner at all, nor be prevented from doing so as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other students. :Our students are building their own future. At least they need to be comfortable in it. Chadlupkes 20:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Good addition, go ahead and change it. Midian 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) clarification? It seems to me there are a plurality of issues here, and the confusion between them is hindering the debate process: # Whether individuals should be permitted to pray, on their own initiative, while in (public) school; # Whether groups should be allowed to meet on school grounds for the purpose of prayer or other (specific denominational) religious activity (where the groups are comprised solely of those who choose to meet specifically for this purpose) # Whether official prayer should be conducted at wider school events, where many people may be attending for reasons other than prayer or religious activity #* Every session of Congress is opened in prayer, there is no reason why a school event can't be. If you don't believe in God, just ignore what they are saying. I find it amazing that atheists are so offended by something they don't believe in, does the mention of unicorns and dragons bother them too or do they just ignore it? #** I find it very dangerous when the people who rule this country believe in unicorns and dragons (or in a 2000 years old fairytale). Making people pray in schools before each class legitimate the fairytale and discriminates against people of other believes. It's also pure peer preasure, nothing more nothing less. -- Blackdog 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC) #* 3a. If official prayer is allowed, can anyone attending (including students) be forced to observe that prayer in any fashion (in the US, where official prayer is currently not permitted in public schools, this question may still apply in private schools, where official prayer is allowed; not participating in school prayer is often considered disobedient and can be subject to punishment) #*Personally, I'd argue "yes" for #1 and possibly #2, but "no" for the rest. --Woozalia 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) # The broader issue of whether public (e.g. voucher) funding should or should not be available for private, including religious, schools. (This discussion may relate more to the following article: Distribution of Education Funds. Anyone disagree with moving it there? --Woozalia 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)) #*I believe James Madison answered that question when he vetoed a similar law back in the beginnings of the 19th century. Chadlupkes 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC) #*''What, answered for all time, forever and ever amen? Isn't this wiki about political reform? Besides, I'm not American so perhaps you can describe the law Madison vetoed and explain his rationale for doing so. Thanks. #**Sorry bout that. Madison vetoed a law that would have given money directly to churches from the Federal Government. His reasoning was that tax dollars should not go to any specific church that would use it to help indoctrinate their particular ideology or religious preferences. This launched the non-profit industry in the early 1800's. Chadlupkes 23:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) #**''That's fine, except that if the voucher amounts are consistent regardless of whether they are assigned to a public or private, secular or religious educational institution, as long as the publicly mandated minimum secular curriculum is being met then the funds may be considered to be specific to the secular portions only of the curriculum. If the institution manages to add religious curriculum at no additional charge, that only speaks to the relative efficiency of privately vs. publicly managed concerns. Further, one can argue that refusing public funds to an institution that is capable of meeting the publicly mandated minimum secular curriculum solely because it is a religious institution is an assault on religious freedom.'' #*Every person who pays taxes puts their money into the system to gain benefits back from it. An education for their children is one of those benefits. If a parent feels their children get a better education from private school, that same money (no more, no less) that would have been spent on their public education should be spent on the school of the parent's choice.